Jump to content

Can a Core i5 760 Quad Core run on Windows 2000?

Recommended Posts

Firstly: I am not interested in hearing any opinions on the age of Windows 2000. Windows 2000 is my OS of choice - please respect that.

I am trying to upgrade a P4 2.6 HT system to a Core i5 760 which is a 4-core CPU (no hyperthreading). I am in the process of selecting the motherboard etc.

My concern is that it wont boot and the motherboard is just too different for Win2K to handle.

Today I tried booting a vanilla Win2K SP4/Rollup1 install on a friend's 1-week-old Dell Inspiron 580 "Core i3 540" system, and I got a NTOSKRNL KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED BSOD right before the screen would have kicked in the video driver.

Is there anybody out there running an Intel Core i3/i5/i7 on Windows 2000? I saw BlackWingCat has it running, but how? The USB keyboard and mouse won't function in Win2K Setup (with SP4 slipstreamed of course). Does win2k absolutely require a motherboard with PS/2 Keyboard?

Will Windows 2000 Pro only use 2 of my 4 cores? I know Microsoft officially licenses by CPU "Socket" but I wonder if Win2K Pro will use all 4 cores?

Thanks for your time,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be able to use all 4 cores fine, it limits it based on sockets not cores. XP Home is licensed for one CPU but sees 6 core's fine, and I ran Win2k on a Phenom 9650 of mine just fine and saw all 4 cores in device manager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly respect your favour to W2k for I make the same choice.

W2k Pro using four cores would be new to me, based on what I read at Microsoft: W2k said to count each core (and even each hyperthread, as opposed to Xp) as a socket. So up to now I believed as well that W2k Server would be necessary to take advantage of a quad core - one reason why I have a Core 2 duo (other reason: my applications are single-thread). You also have fast dual cores among the Core i5 in socket 1156.

I could also find a W2k Server for reasonable money on eBay. I sold it again because it shut down slowly, but other people here told me it shouldn't (other thread).

However, I take good notice of other people's experience. Microsoft's claimed limits about its own outphased OS isn't perfectly reliable. For instance, MS tells W95 can't use disks over 32GB, but I installed one on 80GB for over six years that serves faithfully on a daily basis.

A reliable way to know if all cores serve is 7-zip. It has a built-in benchmark that allows to run any number of threads and displays resulting Mips. 10% improvement means the same number of cores, 100% means twice as many.

I have the best experience with Blackwingcat's drivers for W2k. I use the one for ich10r, it works easily with the usual F6 floppy procedure (as opposed to uniata which needs some doing) and provides Raid and Ahci - Ahci is vital for performance, both with a recent mechanical disk and an Ssd. He also has some W2k drivers for chipsets working with Amd Cpu (which slower than Intel these days, alas) as well as for recent graphics cards, but I didn't try them. Blackwingcat recently told his driver works (with his new Inf file, same Sys) on the Pch southbridge (other thread) for socket 1156.

Could something go wrong with the no-execute bit of recent Cpu? W2k doesn't manage it, so one should disable it in the Bios I guess.

There was also NtSwitch which "transformed" a W2k Pro into a "Server" (same for Nt4)...

- I suppose it doesn't bring Active Directory and some more!

- Would it change the maximum core count?

- Legality is debatable... One guy on a forum claimed a judge in the US decided it is legal, but I didn't check. Fact is, NtSwitch is difficult to find.

Please tell us! Whether W2k Pro uses more than two cores interests more people here!

Edited by pointertovoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem with Windows Server is that some programs will detect that it is a server version and say: "Aha! You can't install/run this software on Windows Server - You must buy the Server Version which is exactly the same but costs 3x as much!" *glares at Symantec and Acronis*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly respect your favour to W2k for I make the same choice.


For what reason would you want that kind of computing power?

I have yet to build anything other than a single core machine, mainly

as you, one of my primary apps is that from the AVS user forums the DVD playback for the MDP-130

doesn't function under two or more cores. Even though the card itself will still run under multi-cores

and perform its' DVR functions. Though wallowing in poverty at the moment, I'm getting an itchy trigger finger

for wanting to build a dual core. As for DVR/DVD I already have my eye on the Jetway Flex /w Atom 230 for my next

home theatre pc. It also has a sister board with a Atom 330 dual, though when I can afford one, I'll swap out the P4

in this Asus for one of the dual or quads listed in the manual but for now with a wonky DVD(only) reader in the main

HTPC I depend on this Asus to play my movie collection.


You're lucky, even with Google translate I'm still having a hard time with Blackwingcat's web site. :blushing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had (and are still doing so with 4 boxes and 6 racks) win2000 running on many multi core/chip boxes and heard of many others doing the same.

I also seem to remember reading something from the past as to it being able to see 32 chips/cores,

but as to what version I cant remember.

Most of my multiple core chips are from AMD, I have a few C2D and C2Q chips, but see no reason for the re-engineered Opteron at a far greater cost Intel ask for their ix chips.

The keyboard and mouse being the same, I run both and have never had a problem, I run a 3 tier KVM (PS/2) for most of my boxes and often plug in a USB mouse or keyboard in to one or other to do something on one while the main screens are still on others.

If you had problems in setup I expect you did not have USB keyboard and mouse switched on in the BIOS.

To pointertovoid, I just hi-lighted NTswitch from your post and (using Firefox) sent it to google UK and got back "about 21,800 results (0.25 seconds)"

I checked a few and found many had links to it (NTswitch) and this link seemed as safe as any...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, has somebody observed if W2k Pro loads more than 2 cores with real tasks?

This isn't the same as displaying the cores in the Device Manager.

By the way, last time I looked at the InfInst (probably a Core i7 in socket 1366), they were officially released for W2k.

Only the chipset, especially the recent ich or pch were not - but we have BWC's driver, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great news! Today I received the NewEgg.com shipment and built the system. It works AWESOME on Windows 2000 with BlackWingCat's help!

The system is an MSI P55 CD53 motherboard ($109) which is fabulous and has tons of ports, including legacy ports, 10 USB, 8 SATA, tons of overclocking options.

4GB Mushkin DDR3 RAM.

Gigabyte 512MB GeForce 9800 GT PCI-E card. Installs using BlackWingCat's nVidia forceware drivers. 3D games (Quake4) work, but the nWiz.exe display control panel fails due to UxThemXP.dll failure.

Intel Core i5 760 CPU @ 2.80 GHz. Win2K Pro only uses 2 cores :( Until I can find BlackWingCat to reupload his patch that will allow all 4 cores to be used.

Realtek 10/100/1000 NIC works great with driver right off Realtek website - it has win2000 directory in the driver install!

Intel HD Audio works great with BlackWingCat's drivers ---> http://w2k.flxsrv.org/drivers.htm

I'm so happy! I will continue to tune and optimize this machine and report back.

Edited by Syclone0044
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

And how many Mips do you get on 7-zip with the Core i5 760 Quad?


Measured with v4.57 :

- My PIII Tualatin @1650MHz brings 1050Mips

- My Core 2 Duo E8600 @4000MHz brings about 7600Mips

Sorry for the late response!

With 4.57 I get about 15000 MIPS. What's interesting is that under Windows 7 64-bit with 7z 64-bit, I get 20000 MIPS! I'm not sure if the 64-bit is the big variable or if it's really that much faster?

This is @ 4000MHz on the Core i5 760 with 8 Threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you! This is to my eyes the real proof that W2k does share the work among all cores. And nice performance!

64 bits:

- Computing capacity doesn't change radically for most operations. The essential difference is the width of the addresses. The only computing hardware available is the SSE on a Core, with MMX and scalar operations emulated by the SSE hardware.

- But the 64 bits mode accesses more registers, and this makes a difference if the code is compiled to take advantage of them, which is definitely the case of 7zip. Only 8 registers in 32 bits mode, needing to swap values with memory too often.

- And the 64 bits mode can use the operations on 64 bits integer values. MMX and SSE operations remain the same. I expect that 7zip, which is optimized, uses SSE (=128 bits) wherever possible, and then the 64 bits operations bring little.

- 20,000 Mips is far from twice 15,000 Mips. A small hint that 7zip uses SSE in both cases, the difference coming from the number of registers and a few added, more efficient instructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

One problem with Windows Server is that some programs will detect that it is a server version and say: "Aha! You can't install/run this software on Windows Server - You must buy the Server Version which is exactly the same but costs 3x as much!" *glares at Symantec and Acronis*

this is also true for avast! server edition, O&O Defrag server edition and AVG Antivirus File Server edition.

the client or workstation edition of these apps may not install nor run under server versions of Windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...


That error is often because your processor isn't working correctly. (overheating core(s) can cause this error.)

(or you're overclocking your core(s) and you need more Vcore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...